Article Tools

Testimony in the double murder trial of Corey Lyons came to a screeching halt on Monday as Judge Brian Hill adjourned the day’s proceedings early in order to consider a potential mistrial.

Defense attorney Robert Sanger is arguing that the jury may have been irreparably influenced by improper witness testimony, and as a consequence, the defendant could be deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights if the trial is allowed to continue.

According to Sanger, testimony by Corey’s eldest brother, Tom Lyons, included “highly prejudicial” hearsay that he says will be difficult for jurors to discount even if they are instructed to do so by the judge.

Tom, who testified that he believes that Corey is responsible for the death of their brother, Dan, and their brother’s life partner, Barbara, was called to the stand following the conclusion of his sister’s testimony earlier in the day.

The controversy began when Tom was asked by the prosecution about a conversation that allegedly took place between him and his sister, but responded in a way that referenced a larger family discussion that reportedly took place just days after Corey’s arrest. It was during this discussion, he said, that family members largely acknowledged to each other that they had little doubt that Corey was guilty. “No one ever questioned the fact that Corey was responsible,” he said.

This statement drew a number of objections from the defense, and was eventually ruled as inadmissible hearsay by Judge Hill. But by that point, any potential damage had been done.

The remainder of the day was spent outside the presence of the jury where the issue was discussed at length by all sides. Ultimately, Judge Hill decided to delay ruling on the matter, but instructed both sides to return on Tuesday armed with legal precedent that could help guide his decision on whether a “curative instruction” would be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the current situation.

Should a mistrial be granted, the prosecution would be forced to retry the case with a different jury.

Comments

You assume he's guilty because he had a motive, but motive does not establish guilt. You, for instance state that your motive for posting is to teach ignorant liberals the truth, but so far no one could convict you of teaching anyone the truth.

Let's examine that motive. Big brother, the attorney, asks little brother, the contractor, to build him a dream house. Little brother's wife begs him not to - Big Brother has been a bad brother and she does not trust him to pay. Nonetheless, Little Brother agrees to build the house and soon finds himself screwed and sued.

What kind of Big Brother does that? Most likely the kind who does that sort of thing a lot. Now, that's an interesting character. Do you imagine that he has not generated motives for his murder elsewhere? Do you imagine there are not many other potential killers?

Rambler - I agree with you in that "InTheKnow" is way too quick to draw such a brazen conclusion. However, when the puzzle pieces add up, the jury should easily find Corey Lyons guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Of course other people might have wanted to kill Dan & Barbara, but the fact that Corey was supposed to sign over a huge portion of his assets the same day they were killed is highly suspicious. Also, whoever killed them must have had intimate knowledge of the layout of the house (i.e. Corey - the person who built the house) to pull off a double-killing in separate bedrooms in the darkness of night.

Also suspicious is Corey's disappearance that night when police showed up, the GSR all over his hands, the fact that he was making phone calls at 3AM from his employer's office - then left his motorcycle in the parking lot with a note saying it had broken down (when in fact it was working perfectly), the numerous accounts of him telling his friends that he wanted to kill his brother prior to the incident, etc, etc, etc...

Sanger is arguing that Corey was in the RV all along - and was in the bathroom when his wife, along with SBPD, yelled into the RV to see if he was there. Do you think an innocent person would ignore his wife, especially when he has young kids, when she comes to check on him?